Context: Admiral Patrick replied and included this gem:
And might I add that not one person complained until db0 went internet Karen with his hissy fit because I took his toy away from him.
"Not one person complained about my explicitly obfuscated blacklists! Damn internet Karens making a big deal!"
If you want to offer a default filtered experience, you do that at the instance level, not as a frontend dev.
And you absolutely do not do that in secret, deliberately not informing users of the 'filtered experience' they're signing up for and disguising the filtering as technical failures.
If you want to start a Lemmy instance for centrist normies that blocks its users from all the 'extreme' stuff (and you are transparent to those users about what you're blocking and why), that's perfectly fine. Go ahead. I don't think your "I'll decide what should be censored for you" approach will be as popular as you think, but there's no reason not to try it.
I already do. Regularly. Which is why I recommend it. What, are you suggesting I should block you or something? Honey, you're not nearly annoying enough to block. Not yet, anyway.
Just to be VERY clear, I do not defend hiding the moderation choices, especially not in places where they aren't expected!
But the statement I responded to was about wanting less moderation than the current default. That's the only thing I talked about there. Users should have a CHOICE and that includes an informed choice in degree of filtering
This should also have been obvious from my prior reply just one step up!